Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Jamshedpur Versus M/s International Auto Ltd.

2015 (10) TMI 2135 - CESTAT KOLKATA

Denial of CENVAT Credit - Capital goods - Held that:- Consultant for the Respondent has now placed a Chartered Engineer Certificate dated 18th March, 2015, wherein it is stated that the cenvat credit availed on capital goods by the Respondent in February, 2008 relating to their non-sheet metal division, which was not sold to M/s Caparo. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the said Certificate needs to be scrutinized by the adjudicating authority. Both sides agree that the matter may be .....

able. The demand was confirmed by the Addl. Commissioner and penalty under Section 15 (2) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was imposed. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). The ld. Commissioner (Appeals), on the basis of the evidences produced, reduced the demand to ₹ 11,77,897/-. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Revenue is in Appeal. 3. The Respondent also had filed a Cross Objection, which is nothing but in the nature a wri .....

eet metal business was never transferred to M/s Caparo and the credit availed on the capital goods, relate to tool bits, drills, insert, dashing wheels etc. which consumed after 4 to 5 cycles of production. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue, also argues that this finding arrived at by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), is un-tenable in law and the Order of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) accordingly be set aside. 5. The ld.Consultant for the Respondent, submits that during the course of hearing before the l .....

e was a contradictory statement before the ld.Commissioner (Appeals), is incorrect, inasmuch as they had advanced two fold submissions before the ld.Commissiner (Appeals) stating that most of the items used were tool bits, drills, insert, dashing wheels, spare, parts etc., hence, were exhaustible within 4 to 5 cycles of its use. Secondly, they have submitted that the non-sheet metal division was not sold to M/s Caparo, therefore, they are not required to reverse the cenvat credit availed in the .....

nd the cenvat credit allowed by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) was of ₹ 11,77,897/-, whereas the present Certificate produced by the ld.Consultant for the Respondent, was of ₹ 12,07,565/-. He submits that since the cenvat credit figures appearing in the Commissioner's (Appeals) Order, are different, therefore, the Chartered Engineer's Certificate needs to be scrutinized by the adjudicating authority on the eligibility of cenvat credit to the extent of ₹ 11,77,897/-, sinc .....